A grieving couple jumped from Beachy Head apparently carrying the body of their five-year-old son two days after his death from meningitis, it emerged today.
The bodies of Neil Puttick, 34, and his wife, Kazumi, 44, from Wiltshire, were spotted at the foot of the cliffs on Sunday evening. The body of their child, Samuel, was found in a rucksack nearby.
Samuel had been discharged from hospital on Friday after it became clear he was not going to survive. He was allowed to leave so he could die peacefully at home. The boy, who neighbours said had suffered serious spinal injuries in an accident about three years ago, was confirmed dead later that evening…
An Eastbourne coastguard station officer, Stuart McNab, said coastguards on a routine clifftop patrol had seen what they believed to be two bodies about 400ft down the cliff just before 8pm on Sunday and alerted police, but it was decided it would be safer to wait and carry out the recovery the next day.
McNab, who was one of the first people to be taken to the scene by helicopter, said he had found the child’s body in a rucksack along with a second rucksack filled with soft toys and a toy tractor…
A spokesman for Dover coastguard said: “It is really horrific and incredibly sad. In my four years with the coastguard I have never known anything like this.”
I won’t comment further. It’s all too sad.
Poor kiddo (here goes my empathy).
Parents’ suicide was GREAT! They couldn’t make better gift to society than eliminate their genes once and for all from available gene pool
(yes, no empathy, sympathy or such for idiots).
Major 2009 Darwin Award to them!
Bobbo,
You are quite correct. This couple committed a very stupid act.
NOTE:
The suicides don’t qualify for the Darwin Awards. Although this might clean the gene pool some, there is a difference between being stupid and wanting to end it all.
#63–Fusion==you deny the basic equation: LIFE IS ALL THERE IS. If the emotions are great, then the intellect must be even greater. Perhaps stupid is the “wrong” word, but it is in the ballpark. Shortsighted? Really very much the same thing as stupid. It is the intellectual recognition that LIFE IS ALL THERE IS that tides one through lifes adversities or allows one to rationally say “this is enough, time to end it.”
Now, Darwin Recipients did not engage in their activities for the purpose of ending their lives, so I take your point, but stupidity, lack of long term thinking, misallocation of values, over investment in secondary issues are all at play here.
Bobbo,
You are quite wrong to call their action stupid. Mr Fusion and the Darwin Awards are right, there is a difference between being stupid and wanting to end it all.
Suicide is obviously not a rational option for you right now because the value of your continued existence (the present and future joy you perceive it might bring) far outweighs any pain you are presently suffering or can see you might suffer in the future. Please take a moment to consider how this assessment might shift if you were experiencing terrible loss in the present and could see that this would continue into the future.
I think there is a misconception that people who suicide do it spontaneously and don’t rationalize their actions. People who are depressed are or in dispair usually agonize over their options for ages. Where things break down is when they fail to perceive any potential in their future life or believe the pain they are currently suffering will never end.
So, yes, you are right to say they invested too much in the child but to call their actions stupid is callous and really doesn’t fit the circumstances of this tragic story.
#65 – Spiral,
I disagree. You seem to be basing your conclusion on the idea that sometimes Suicide is the Right Option, because:
“this assessment might shift if you were experiencing terrible loss in the present and could see that this would continue into the future.”
And then you go on and say that “there is a misconception that people who suicide do it spontaneously and don’t rationalize their actions.”
do you not realize the disconnect? Suicide *is* a spontaneous reaction — or rather, a reaction to a spontaneous, contemporaneous event. No one in their right minds has ever committed suicide because their life is peachy and it might get worse in the future. The problem of suicides is that they’re fixated on their *present* suffering, failing to take into account their *future*, which is inherently unpredictable. They justify this of course by saying that their life will *never* change, their suffering will *never* end, etc. But to quote Tolkien, “never is too long a word for me”. One can’t predict what’s going to happen 10 minutes from now, let alone tomorrow, let alone in a year. One can *assume*, sure, but assumptions, even educated guesses, are irrational if one accepts them as *certainties*.
And so suicides, although the individual might have thought about a long time and “weighed” their options, inherently are on-the-moment decisions. The rational mind sees that living another day is always superior to *not*. The irrational mind, fixated on the *present, contemporaneous* problem, doesn’t.
So, yes, suicide is stupid, and always.
But that does not excuse a lack of empathy.
Well, I think a life in the gulag or the concentration camp is worth considering suicide===not because the future might not be better but because the reasonable near future makes suicide a reasonable option.
Totally different is the notion of killing oneslf because the kiddie died. This is a deficiency in imagination and rationality. One could say: The only life my dead kiddie has is my wife and I keeping his memory alive in our hearts. Kill yourself, and the already dead kiddie dies again. How silly.
The range of emotional responses to the death of a child is wide open and freely chosen by the parents. Not so a concentration camp occupant or the victim of a wasting disease, or someone dying of thirst in a raft, etc. Outside events continuing to pile on vs all actions terminated and only an assessment of them remaining are two different worlds.
#65–spiral==its stupid or not depending on how you define it. Would you call it not smart or what “intellect” oriented word would you use? Everyone agrees this is not a Darwin Award situation.
#67 Bobbo
Ehh???! I should have only posted the first line and a half, you obviously didn’t read past that.
#68–spiral==its stupid or not depending on how you define it. Would you call it not smart or what “intellect” oriented word would you use? Everyone agrees this is not a Darwin Award situation.
So blinded by your own position that when other people disagree you think they haven’t read what you posted? Heh, heh. yea, sure.
“The Promise of Hope” being shown on CNN news right now. Idiot parents being fleeced of their money in bogus medical scams.
Saddest thing I have ever heard of.
Normally suicides have me feeling angry but this story has left me feeling empty inside. I hope they’ve found the peace they were looking for. I’m just sorry that they felt this choice was all that was left for them. I wish I could have given them a hug to help with the pain.
#64, Bobbo,
Fusion==you deny the basic equation: LIFE IS ALL THERE IS.
Man, it ain’t the destination, it’s the effen trip getting there is what it is all about.
Without getting into the definition of “stupid”, what this couple did was stupid. If Cow-Patty or Alphie did it then it would be reel steooopid. (add some flying spray on that stupid)
If the couple couldn’t understand what walking off the cliff would do, they didn’t belong in the human race to begin with. If they didn’t understand what a sudden impact with the rocks at terminal velocity would do, then they are stupid. If they wanted that to happen, then they are reel steooopid for throwing their lives away.
Either way, they or the act rates as stupid. And therefore, steooopid is the correct word.
And I still think your post #1 is correct.
I knew this one would be polarizing, and so I scanned the comments. It’s been a while since I read the comments because of the flamebaiters (bobbo, Fusion, Mustard). Sure enough, there you are (where’s mustard?). I’m as cerebral and logical as they come – trust me. I haven’t shed a single tear since 2007, but let me tell you something – I’d be wrecked if something happened to my kids. You may not agree with or condone what these people did, but if you can’t understand it then you are either a 14-year-old troll or a bitter and childless 55-year-old man with nothing better to do than spend all day flamebaiting on a blog. Thanks for reminding me why I quit reading the comments.
# 50 – Bobbo
Welp…here it is, my reply to your post. I wish I could have gotten around to this sooner, but I’ve had a busy evening of watching Terminator 4, going to the gym, and entertaining a female friend of mine 😉
I guess the best way to go about this is to go through each of your points in turn, and give my opinions on them. I must say though, your retort is very well structured and well written, so many kudos on you for that.
1.”What good is the truth if it can’t be used?” I have never claimed that it was useful. I will be upfront with you, and admit that determinism has little practical applications in the real world. My original premise was that this was the way I saw the world, and how this conclusion was reached through a logical dialectic. My argument was never that it was useful, but more that it was true. Truth exists independently of if it is useful or not.
2. This point is pretty much covered in my previous point. Determinism is not supposed to be pragmatic, and I never made any claim it was. The question is if it is true or not, not if it is useful. They are two different things.
3. Well, this is speculation on your part. As an atheist I hear a simular argument from religious types, which goes along the lines of “if everyone didn’t believe in god, then no one would be responsible for whast they do, or have a reason to behave in a good way and would just kill each other, etc”. I have not seen any evidence why this is so. I don’t believe in free will and am not an anarchist (despite my name), as are many other people. It does however, help me to deal with personal issues by giving me another view to them, and I have personally found it to help me accept hard situations. This however, is irrelevant to my argument. Also “common sense” is a subjective term, and has no objective measure, and so in terms of logic and rationality, it has no place. The reason we have logic and rationality, is to take out any human subjective “sense”, common or otherwise. Humans can always be decieved.
4. Well anarchy is a word used to describe a country or state without any governance, and it is generally used in a political sense. I know it can also be used to describe other situations which arent strictly to do with politics, however it is not relevant to my original premise. I am only a determinist in how I understand the universe to work, and at a very deep level, humans and their physical actions. I am not making any comment about political anarchy, or the vices and virtues that come along with it. It is a purely objective argument about the physical world.
5. “In theory, my hand will pass thru a wall because both are mostly empty space”. Determinism does not claim that your hand would go through a wall. I’m not sure what the actual point you are making there is, to be honest with you. There is scientific reasons as to why this is not the case and it is to do with the various subatomic forces that dictate the world at that level, that I wont even pretend to fully understand. So in theory, it won’t pass through a wall, unless the theory you are using is very out of date and not taking into account the various quantum forces that interact on your hand and the wall.
6. It is not dogma or faith on my part. Faith and dogma insinuated I believe this as a result of some authority, and carry on believing it despite evidence to the contrary. My conlusions are a result of my own logical exploration of this subject, and I would happily change my position should I have a rational reason to believe otherwise.
“Multiply that by the googleplex upon googleplex of intervening causation from the First Cause and you have meaninglessness even if it is true.” Again. I am not saying it is necessarily meaningful. I am just saying it is true at a very very very basic level of the universe.
“Lets say you want the answer to how to create cold water fusion and the answer is in a sealed box. The answer exists, but it is sealed. Sealed in a box called determinism. Its “there” but you can’t use it. Same thing as if it didn’t exist at all because it can’t be used”. This analogy I find to be illogical. You are saying yourself that if we knew cold fusion could be done, but we did not know how, then that is the same as it being theoretically impossible? You might as well say “I’m not on the moon right now. I can’t know whats going on on the moon right now, so therefore the moon doesnt exist”. Just because something is not useful does not mean it isnt true. Just because something isnt discovered, it does not mean it is not true until it is discovered. Truth exists regardless of if the truth is known by man or not. I can understand that you you could say that at a practical level its as ‘good as’ being none existant, but I don’t think thats the same as being physically none existant.
7. “your determinism if it exists at best exists in a locked box of no meaning”. Again, I think I’ve already covered this issue. I will conceed with you that we will never understand the causal relationships of every atom in the universe as that would require perfect knowledge, and so we cannot scientifically prove it to be true with physical experiments, at the level of human consiousness. We can however reason that it must be true. The closest I could come to proving it scientifically is to say that we consider a very basic form of life. A bacterium for example. This animal has a very basic sensory system and is attracted to the light. We shine a light and the bacterium goes towards the light as it provides it with energy. Would you deduce that that bacteria has free will, or would you determine that it is a very basic chemical response to the light? Most would not grant that it was consious and that its actions were determined by its chemical system. Humans are a very very complex form of life, but are no different to this bacteria. The biochemical and nervous system are so vastly complex we are not even close to fully understanding it, and how all the various parts interact, and in what relationship. It is so complex, it has even produced the phenomenom of consiousness, which although subjectively experienced, we must still deduce is based on those same causal relationships as the bacteria’s, just at a super-complex level. It is logically impossible for a causal system to develop so intricately, it breaks free of cause and effect and exist above it somehow.
8. Although the random number generator is physically located in the computer and not in the human brain, it is still an interaction between the brain and the computer dictated by a causal relationship. The physical area of one complex system (computer) and another (brain) is irrelevant. They still interact, as we all do with our environments. I agree with you that we are not able to predict the future. In theory we could if we had perfect knowledge, but there are practical limitations to this. We can still however deduce that it is true, even without physical experimentations that show it at a complex level. We can of course predict causal relations at a macro level. I can predict the causal relationship that hitting a small child in the face with a large trout would make the child unhappy. That is a causal relationship. If however you then asked “but where is every single atom going to be at every nanosecond of time during this action?” I would not be able to answer due to the sheer magnitude of information needed to calculate that. You wouldnt however say, “well because you can’t tell me that, causation doesnt exist”.
I can also assure you that I am nothing like Alfie. although, Ironically enough, my middle name is Alfred :s He has come to his conclusions through self delusion, probabaly as a result of his upbringing, and the identity he has attached to his beliefs, and as a result is not looking for truth, but for comfort. People like that can never be swayed, as they dont follow the tenants of logic, and so any sort of discussion with them is in vain. I, however, am always looking to learn more, and will gladly change my position should new information come about that convinces me to logically.
9. “A system of knowledge that results in ZERO predictive power is meaningless”. Dont really want to repeat myself, but I think I’ve convered this. what is useful, and what is true are two different things.
10. “Lets see. Which “theory” is more likely true: 100% predicability, or admission of 100% non-predictability. Tough call”. The theory of free will is only predictable by the person experiencing it. If however the consiousness that creates the free will is determined by the forces of physics, which we can logically induce, then it is meaningless. How do you predict free-will? Its like looking at a person and saying “ok, if free will exists, predict what that person is going to do next”. You cant predict it objectively anymore than determinism. However, with determinism you can logically deduce it exists, whereas with freewill, you cannot, as it requres you to escape the web of causation, which is physically impossible.
11. “Well, thats the real nub here isn’t it. Not physics and causation but the non-physical world of consciousness. A mystery. A mystery where freewill appears to work and determinism is meaningless with no prospects for that assessment to change”. Free-will appears to work, because it is a result of consiousness which has to be created by determined forces. I won’t pretend to fully understand coniousness and how exactly the phenomena has arisen from physical forces, as not even our best neuroscientists have come up with a rock-steady conclusion to that. We do know however that it is a result of something physical. To simply declare that it is a “mystery” is redundant. It’s the sort of thing Alfie would say. Its the god of the gaps. Saying its just a mystery, is just like saying “god did it”. It brings us no closer to a coherant explaination.
12. “I am very comfortable with giving you a theoretical win while keeping the practical effects.” Well I guess maybe this is a sort of agreement. This is pretty much what I was originally saying. I readily admit, that there is no direct practical benefits to determinism being true. I felt that you were denying the very premise that it was true though, and hence our little discussion. I personally see free will as an illusion created by our consiousness to allow us to adapt, communicate and learn in the best way possible, which is evolutionary beneficial. It gives us the feeling that we are something which decided our own destiny, although we know that technically, that cannot be possible. This illusion of free will have many uses in our society though. As long as you understand that it is not something that physically exists, but is a concept created by our minds, then I feel we can come to some sort of agreement.
Thats pretty much my position on the whole issue anyway. I am doubtful that you would want to go through those points and counteract each one, although please do if you wish. If you want to draw any sort of conclusion from this It would be nice to hear. If you want to carry on the discussion, may I suggest that instead of looking to destroy determinism, and use that as the basis for free will being true, we possibly look for arguments that dont go along the lines of “determinism is wrong because … therefore free will”. Maybe you could present some arguments as to why free will is actively true as you see it. Otherwise youll be like the creationist whos argument is “evolution is wrong because…therefore creation”. Destroying determinism doesnt instantly mean free will is therefore right, just as destroying evolution does not therefore make creation right. You have to present evidence as to WHY you think something.
I must say, I have enjoyed this discussion with you so far. You are obviously a very intelligent person, which is quite rare to find on the internet. I just hope you are the highest order of intelligent, which is someone who is able to change their opinion as new evidence comes to light, for they are the rarest of beasts. I am not suggesting that you change your mind cause of what I have said, but I would encourage you to investigate the issue further and see what you can take away from it. I might be wrong afterall. I am just expressing my opinions on the world, and how I came to that conclusion. I readily admit though, that I am always changing my opinions and growing my mind, so you never know. You might find me a free will beliver in the future, hehe. at the moment though, im pretty much a hard determinist, and thats why 🙂
#73, chainring,
No one suggested that losing any loved one is not a traumatic event. What Bobbo and I have said is the parents reaction is stupid. They didn’t give up their lives to save a child, they gave up their lives for no reason. Nothing was gained, except the gene pool is now a little clearer.
#72–Fusion==whether we are flamebaiting or trying to find the deeper point, I welcome your support and your criticism as you find warranted.
#73–Chainring==well, Fusion said it better than my first blush response. Can’t you do any better?
#74–FA==no time to even read your response except noticing you correctly allocated your time. Will respond later.
#74–FA==I’ll go ad hominem here for a bit to comment that there is little intelligence in a position that you find almost completely erroneous. You set this damning by inconsistent evaluation up by congratulating me on my “structure” which was me robotically responding to YOUR structure and the points YOU made. To find excellence in your own reflection, is just too self reverential. How conscious of it are you? (smile!)
So, I could once again respond point by point as I do respect the completeness and connection that approach requires. But I would be quibbling and repetitive which is bad form in my book. But so is going ad hominem which I did just above and in my joke comparison of you to Alfie. That comparison would be taken out in the second draft of any such exchange. Do you find conversations can be like chess matches? Its not enough to win, you have to win correctly. No cheating. No errors. The best game from each participant. Then you play again. It’s the only way both participants can get better. The dialectic replayed, no death match, just opportunities for growth.
As with all too many arguments, we began without definition, without firmly stating what the premise/set up was. “Are you a determinist” is a slightly different question from whether or not the universe is determined or chaotic. So what I find interesting in our exchange is whether or not we can establish common ground and how much ground that would cover.
I will maintain that humans act from free will as opposed to deterministic principals and that is TRUE regardless of whether or not the truth is factually deterministic. This is not raw belief, nor god in the gaps, but the reality of pragmatism.
Let me use an analogy. Theories can be “wrong” or perhaps more accurately sufficient only within their own reference. Take Newtonian physics. Its wrong, but it works quite well for a game of pool. Take flat maps. They are wrong, but they work quite well for driving from A to B. Take free will. It may be wrong, but it’s the ONLY thing that works in explaining human experience and what you are going to do in response to this posting. To disagree and say “No its all determined” and yet not be able to predict another person’s reaction in similar situations is to demonstrate our true natures. The universe may be determined, but for all that we can predict and perceive, we operate with free will. YOU and I demonstrate and act on free will as our reference is ourselves/the human one. Free will is sufficient and in fact the only option that works within that reference. The Fifth Dimension may exist but we operate in the 3-4 per your definition. The Fifth Dimension may be the truth, but it is irrelevant until it is brought into our reference. Same with determinism.
So, who can change horses running how fast? Are your decisions made by yourself or by mechanical actions unperceivable by you? If such actions are unperceivable, who is acting on “belief” and faith in maintaining such as the basis? Can you perceive your own rational process? If you perceive and act on and are affected by what we call free will and you do not perceive and cannot use determinism, then “what are you?”
I should let this sit overnight, but something compels me to post it anyway. What could it be?????
Please don’t answer this tonight ((of course, unless you are compelled to do so)) otherwise my only response will be to pop open a new beer and read it.